“The administration pretends that this is about contraception. It is not.”

Americans United for Life have put out a video that needs to go viral:

Do your part to help spread that one around. And go by The Anchoress’ place and thank her for the find. She’s got a thing or two to say about it all:

Let’s keep making believe that entities besides Democrats, Democrat operatives and the Mainstream Media are talking about banning contraception.

Let’s keep promulgating the utter lie — and that’s all it is, a big, fat lie — that some mean, out-of-touch bishops are trying to take women’s birth control away from them! You know, the birth control that the CDC reports (pdf) 99% of American women call readily available and affordable.

Let’s keep talking about a 30-year old student/activist (who attends one of the priciestschools in the country) whining to congress that her birth control should be free, and pretending that this is a real issue.

I mean, let me be clear — I think Limbaugh went down a foolish and unconstructive route with his vulgarisms. But excuse me if I remain unpersuaded by the hysterics and demands for“repudiations” from people who were not the tiniest bit scandalized when other women — the wrong sorts of women, not “real” women, I guess — were called names that were equally as vulgar if not more so. Spare me the theatrics, please. If Limbaugh is to be burned if effigy, let him be joined by Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann and others to be named later.

About The Author

Pathetic backsliding. If Catholic doctrine says that contraception is sinful, you should be agitating to outlaw it, instead of whining that you’re not agitating to outlaw it. Stand up for your beliefs.

Brian_The_Adequate

Shenanigans Chico – your argument is a false dilemma.

One can certainly see a difference between what is immoral and what should be illegal without being hypocritical. Your proposal leaves people of faith no room to have personal conviction and moral codes without advocating full blown theocracy.

herddog505

Exactly right.

http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

On second thought…

Never mind.

It’s a trap!

SoBeRight

Using lies to illustrate your point was sheer genius.

“Let’s keep promulgating the utter lie — and that’s all it is, a big, fat lie — that some mean, out-of-touch bishops are trying to take women’s birth control away from them! “

It’s a lie to suggest that “taking birth control away from them” is the issue.

“Let’s keep talking about a 30-year old student/activist (who attends one of the priciestschools in the country) whining to congress that her birth control should be free, and pretending that this is a real issue.”

Feel free to show where she’s asked that it be free. She hasn’t. She just wants it covered hy her health insurance, for which she pays the premium.At issue is church vs state. It’s clear that religious extremists have infiltrated our country and want to do harm to our nation by denying woman that which men receive freely.

These health insurance plans cover make contraceptives (vasectomies) but the misogynist religious extremists want coverage for men and not women, and they are so desperate to deny women that coverage that they lie about it.

UOG

“These health insurance plans cover make contraceptives (vasectomies) but the misogynist religious extremists want coverage for men and not women, and they are so desperate to deny women that coverage that they lie about it.”

Tubal ligation is much more equivalent to the vasectomy than birth control pills. From WebMD…”Although tubal ligation and tubal implants are expensive, it is a one-time cost. These procedures are usually covered by medical insurance, and there are no costs after the surgery is done.” They go on to point out that over the course of a person’s lifetime “having your tubes tied” generally costs less than being on the pill, but that just saves the insurance company money. Still, Pelosi and company were going on about how free birth control pills would save the insurance companies money, so I guess that’s a legitimate concern here.

Hank_M

Excellent piece by the Anchoress.

And she’s right. This has been nothing but a dog and pony show by the democrats and it would not have been successful without the assist by the LSM and the continued stupidity of the right.

The dems excel at this, using what they think are unimpeachable “witnesses” to advance their narrative, using lies to appeal to the emotions of the less-informed.

So here we are, arguing over contraceptives, whether the right hates women, and even abortion itself. Deja Vu or what?

But it works. It diverts attention from the disastrous condition of the economy, fast and furious, the rampant cronyism, the utter ineptness of the Obama administration and more importantly, their disregard for the 1st amendment.

As for Limbaugh, maybe he can spend some time with Maher and others. I’m sure they can show him the proper way to refer to women who they disagree with.

Tano

Now lets see. First off, it was YOUR leading candidate, Mr. Santorum, who has made clear that a) he wants political power, and b) he thinks religion should have a greater role in the governmental sphere, and c) that the Griswold decision (y’know – right to privacy, denying the government the power to ban birth control), was “wrongfully decided”, and d) that birth control is a “bad thing’ with terribly corrosive consequences for our culture.

And oh yeah, he was explicitly making these points at the time that the Republican party seemed to be turning toward him as their savior.

So you think that the Dems are somehow guilty of some “con’ by making all this up????

If you think that this is no issue, that you and the overwhelming majority of Republicans have no intention whatsoever to move against contraception, then it seems pretty clear that you need to slap down Mr. Santorum. What is the sense of going after people who merely take him at his word regarding what is on his political agenda???

And oh yes, let us not forget that this whole “religious exemption” argument is the real con. Employers do not “provide” health care. They do not “provide” health insurance. They do not pay for health insurance. What they do is to facilitate the purchase of health insurance (by pooling together their employees and negotiating a deal with the insurance company) using money that belongs to the employees – their compensation. The employer is not paying for the insurance – the money comes from what the employee has already earned.

Look, if you find all this morally troubling, then get behind a single-payer system. It is a bit of an historical anomaly that we link the purchase of health insurance to our jobs. It would make sense to break that link. Especially if it is now all the rage amongst employers to take advantage of the current system and to try to exert control over the details of their employee’s health care.

I would expect that people who are committed to the concept of freedom would be sensitive to the intrusive attack on freedom by employers who try to use their position of power to tell you what will be and what will not be in your private health insurance package.

Commander_Chico

This post by Rick reminds me of the tactics of some of the Islamist movements in Libya, Iraq and Egypt. Those movements first deny that they want to ban alcohol or make women wear the hijab, then they take small steps to do those very things once in power, then bigger steps.

According to Catholic doctrine, contraception is a mortal sin.

GarandFan

Yeah! Catholic Bishops want to RULE the US! Right Chico?

SoBeRight

Catholic followers would prefer to follow the church rather than the Constitution – the same way Muslims slavishly follow the Koran.

” Catholic followers would prefer to follow the church rather than the Constitution”

Yeah, we’re gonna convert all you heathens and protestants and the Pope will become president.

As usual, your full of bullshit!

And don’t let the First Amendment hit you in the ass on your way out.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

Don’t let Santorum’s smear hit you in the face. Sure, the guy is great for social conservatives (*snicker*) but he’s going against the Catholic teachings and most of the popes with his really inane rhetoric to promote the pro-life agenda.

No wonder R. Paul called him a fake conservative.

http://proteinwisdom.com/ McGehee

Yeah, we’re gonna convert all you heathens and protestants

BY THE SWORD!!!!

/sarc, for the clueless

Tano

Well, they do have many centuries of experience of very tight association with governments such that the government’s power could be marshaled to enforce Church teachings. I certainly acknowledge that American Catholics have largely absorbed American political values, so few would really pine for a return to such an arrangement, but it does bear remembering what the history and culture of the Church is, and to be wary of those who seem to be going down that road, especially when they couch it in terms of “returning to traditional values”.

GarandFan

Nice strawman. Funny part is that when running for office JFK ran into the same argument. But let’s really get the conspiracy wackos going. Joe Biden and Leon Panetta are … gasp…. Catholic! And both disagree with The Obamassiah on this issue. Guess it won’t be long now.

EricSteel

Tano, you’re argument was wrong two weeks ago and it is still wrong. I’m still waiting for you to explain to me how I can get Visioncare when my employer doesn’t offer it.

Tano

Once again Eric – and sorry for being a stickler for precise language, but it is not your employer who is offering, or not offering vision care. Of course it seems that way, and everyone casually talks about it in those terms, but in fact, the visioncare, if you were to receive it, would be provided by your insurance company, and would be paid for _fully_ by you – through your earnings – even if some of those earnings came out of your gross salary and others from outside of your salary – simply as “fringe” benefits.

Your company has apparently decided to negotiate a deal with the insurance company without this care. I imagine that if you made it clear to them that you wanted it, they could renegotiate the deal – its not like it would cost them anything since they could simply take the cost out of your salary, or out of any future raise you might be getting.

If this were really important to you, and really important to your fellow workers, and really imposed no burden on your employer, but they refused to do so nonetheless because they have some moral objection to humans altering what they saw as God’s plan for their eyes, or whatever, then maybe you might be upset with them….

EricSteel

Tano, 1) first off, again you are wrong about who owns the insurance. The employer owns the policy, when it comes to employer sponsored health insurance. When you leave your employer, you lose that policy. A few years ago, Congress established COBRA, which allows you to essentially, buy the policy, but you have to pay for both your share and the employer’s share of the policy premium.

I know you think you understand how it works, but frankly you really don’t. Most employers don’t have the luxury of negotiating ala carte policies for their employees. They have to negotiate group plans with the insurance companies.

2). As for the Visioncare, you are exactly right. My employer negotiated a plan with the insurance company that did not include visioncare. The same process is involved in the contraception debate. Companies negotiated with the insurance companies not to include contraception coverage, and guess what, its not provided.

3). Your argument also fails to address those employers that self insure.

Tano

Sorry Eric, you are not making sense here. You lose the policy when you leave the job because the policy was negotiated for a defined pool of customers – and you are no longer part of the pool. The insurance company has set its price based on that pool, so it the policy is voided once you leave the pool.

Unless you take advantage of the COBRA provision. As you say you then have to pay for the plan yourself.. But you ALWAYS pay for it yourself. The “employer’s share” of your insurance costs is nothing other than more of YOUR COMPENSATION.

The employer is not buying insurance and giving it to you. The ONLY thing that your employer is paying for is YOUR LABOR. Once you do the work, you are entitled to the compensation that you signed up for – most of it coming in the form of pixel-dollars in your bank account, the rest coming in the form of pixel-dollars forwarded to your health insurance company for YOUR policy.

“They have to negotiate group plans with the insurance companies. ”

That is what I said, several times now. Their role in all this is to assemble a pool of customers for the insurance company, and then negotiate a deal for that group. It is a facilitation process, thats all. The actual financial transaction is between the insurance company and YOUR MONEY.

The point with the visioncare is that, apparently, you and your fellow employees don’t really want it. If you really wanted it, then your employer should provide it – once again, for the umpteenth time – it is not costing them anything since it is going to be paid for by you, out of your compensation package.

Where the hell do some employers get off thinking that because we have this system where they facilitate the relationship between their employees and the health insurance company, that they suddenly have the right to impose their moral beliefs over your health care options.

You want to buy car insurance? Its up to you and your insurance company to work out the details. Does your boss have a right to intrude and make moral decisions about the nature of the deal? For your homeowner’s insurance? For any other product or service that you choose to buy with your money? Does your boss have any say in that – even if the money you have your earned by working for him?

Why do you assent to giving such power over your life to your employer in this one case? As I mentioned earlier, it is a fluke of history that we get our health insurance through our jobs. Hardly an ideal situation, but so long as it basically works, then we stick with it. But it only works if the employer does not try to leverage their position to try to become petty tyrants over our lives – claiming some right to make moral decisions about what we can or cannot buy from our insurance company.

Gmacr1

Leave it to the two libtards who comment so frequently to be the first to post on this.

What the Democrats have been promogulating with their 3 week long ‘birth control jihad’ is no more than a dictat to Catholics, and by extension any religion. They also told insurance companies that they have to pay for it, that’s right, not an option. By extension I now have to pay for her sexual activities with my premiums.

This is about control, if you will an outright violation of the “Seperation of Church and State” where the State is forcing the Church to accept something that goes directly against its liturgy.

Freedom of religion and freedom of choice, two thing this current goverment will not allow. This has nothing to do with her right to contraception, something she most certainly afford to pay for herself.

http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

“It is not possible to assert with any degree of certainty that she’s a cheap-ass skank looking for someone else to pay for her contraception as we now define ‘cheap-ass skank’.”

“It is not possible to assert with any degree of certainty that she is a slut as we now define sluttiness.”

Funny, isn’t it, how it’s suddenly so incredibly important with everything else going on that this must be a major political issue? This is very, very minor with everything else being faced.

So why the hype? What’s the importance? Or is there actually no real importance – especially with the ready availability of contraception – and it’s misdirection? Needing a distraction, someone loudly starts yelling “They’re gonna steal your ladyparts!”?

Things are going to be one hell of a lot simpler once all the money’s gone.

Not easier – but simpler.

Commander_Chico

Both sides want to mobilize their bases and frame the issues to win the middle.

http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

But even a cursory glance at the issue shows it’s such a non-issue that it’s ridiculous.

What’s the win state here, Chico? Is it worth scorching the nation, sowing massive distrust in the honesty of the other side (no matter which side you’re on) to get a couple points extra on some poll or another? It’s making no sense at all from a practical standpoint, and showing a fundamental unseriousness and unwillingness to deal with the real issues facing us today. ‘Cause this sure ain’t one of them.

The whole political process is looking more and more like a messy, acrimonious divorce, with screaming fights breaking out over who gets the saucer that a house plant stood in five years ago.

Commander_Chico

This is our Kabuki democracy, with oligarchs and other specially- interested elites controlling the real levers of power no matter who wins. Elections are a clown show. The black Bush or the white Obama, that’s our choice this year. The mystery is why people think that there’s a big difference between Obama and Romney, or that the hated Obama is much different from the Bush they adored. I don’t see it.

Suggestion: if you wanted to change things, why not start here at Wizbang? How many posts have there been on this contraception controversy over the last two weeks? Rick’s last post was about a nutball professor in England. Contrast that to how many posts seriously deal with the economy, the wars, taxes, spending. Cut down on the foolish hyper-partisan culture war posts, and try to post things dealing with issues pertaining to all Americans in a thoughtful way.

http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

Or in other words, subjects couched in ways that YOU agree with.

(Shrug.)

Shouldn’t have even bothered…

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

This is our Kabuki democracy, with oligarchs and other specially- interested elites controlling the real levers of power no matter who wins. Elections are a clown show. The black Bush or the white Obama, that’s our choice this year. The mystery is why people think that there’s a big difference between Obama and Romney, or that the hated Obama is much different from the Bush they adored. I don’t see it.

Any discussion on actually changing our political system for the better would be frowned upon.

That’s the saddest part about the political debates here. They are meant to polarize and marginalize actual discussion. If you know what you’re talking about and show how a view point is wrong, woe be tide that you get a slew of folks to smear you and say “Yer a lyer and ya took me jerb”.

Kind of sad if it wasn’t so funny how some come off as ignorant.

ackwired

When I am talking business and someone tells me, “This is not about the money”, I know that what he is about to say is about the money. When a politician tells me, “This is not about sex”, I know that what he or she is about to say is about sex.

Meiji Man

This woman wants over a thousand condoms a year and I don’t get to call her a Slut?

(edited for spelling issue)

914

I will.. She’s a slut!!

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_W6UJJOM4PP4XLSBG6N4LROVSQE Retired Military

Birth control pills cost $8 a month a walmart. No need for this to be covered by health insurance. Condoms cost about a buck apiece. Is that next on the “I want it for free” agenda. If not than it is sexual discrimination.

SoBeRight

Birth control pills cost $8 at Walmart, if you have health insurance that covers birth control pills.

(5 years ago, it was $9. Without a prescription. Give up three cups of coffee at Starbucks, and you’re covered.)

But wait – they’ll steal women’s ladyparts if they can! OMG THEY MUST BE STOPPED!!!111!!?1!

SoBeRight

I stand corrected.

pizz

What about the 14% of woman who use pills for other serious medical problems such as cysts? But you could actually care less about woman’s overall health. could you? Go listen to your idol Rush.

herddog505

“The administration pretends that this is about contraception. It is not.”

Exactly. It is ultimately about two things:

1. Asserting Uncle Sugar’s authority to order employers to provide health care with an eye to (A) covering for the defects of ObamaCare, which is supposed to be about “universal healthcare” (hey, SOMEBODY has to provide it, and (B) establishing that Uncle Sugar, and not employers or insurance companies, get to decide what benefits people get, and;

2. Dems creating a boogeyman (the Catholic Church) to fire up the dimwits who make up their base and distract everybody else from the miserable economy.

914

If Barry’s for it, somebody’s gettin’ screwed! And in this case as usual its the taxpayer! Something he and his administration know nothing about. Paying taxes.

Tano

Obama’s tax returns are made public. Perhaps you could post yours as well, and we can see who actually pays more taxes.

SoBeRight

lol…

pizz

How about him giving the middle class the biggest tax break in the last 25 years. You guys never have facts do you?

Hugh_G

Here we go again. The uber pathetic claim of victimization of the right wing.

Good God almighty the windbag drug addled 4 time married pig goes too far and now it’s a giant conspiracy dredged up by that evil black man in the White House. He, the serial marry(er) has the stones to challenge another’s morals. He, the drug using pig is now a victim!!!

If the author of this piece of tripe actually believes to crap he just wrote I actually have some sympathy. Bit I don’t believe for a minute that he does.

It’s incredible that whenever an extremist from the right gets caught at something outrageous the other extremist from the right blame the black man in the White House of the “liberal media.”

Do you ever wonder why you extremists are so marginalized?

I notice since the topic is indefensible that the extremists here go to pillaring President Obama with the usual worn out memes.

SoBeRight

There’s a saying on the right – “If you going to lose, lose BIG!”….

Seeing Obama’s fortunes turn and that he now leads in the polls against any Republican, it’s time to go for the BIG loss.

They start by alienating 52% of the voting electorate – women.

Meanwhile, in order to rally the base, Romney, Santorum and Gingrich will proceed to insult Blacks, Hispanics, Homosexuals, union members, educated people, the poor, etc.

Have you noticed that the Democrats never have to win elections, they just have to sit back and wait for the Republicans to lose the election.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

Last I checked, I believe Karl Rove and a few others have said they’re already planning for a 2016 election that is a lot better. The final four are too damaged to effectively win against Obama.

Meiji Man

He’s saying that because no-one hired him this year, A Republican win means he’s unemployed for at least another 8 years. But if the Republican looses he can run around saying “I told you so” and hope to get hired by a campaign in 2016.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

I’m really not sure if he’s hurting to be in that type of position right now.

No matter how you look at it, Obama has another 4 years unless he loses his primary.

pizz

Or steal it!

Sky__Captain

For all you libtards who just posted all the Republicans are too “damaged” to win against Obama – I am noting you are not talking about Obama’s actual record.

Which is exactly what this whole kerfluffle about “denying contraception” is designed to do…

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

For all you libtards who just posted all the Republicans are too “damaged” to win against Obama – I am noting you are not talking about Obama’s actual record.

Is this the conservative agenda? Instead of an actual debate, it’s “oh, look at what Obama did” instead of “which one is best to beat Obama”?

Ridiculous.

Mitt Romney is a man that barely pays taxes, is spending $200M for people’s votes and can’t possibly be elected when his plan will cause $6 million in deficits.

Ron Paul, while having a ton of support, can’t win because he won’t play ball on civil rights issues or let go of his 30 year crusade to audit the Fed. Fancy that…

Newt Gingrich and Santorum are dangerous as president. Both want war with Iran with Gingrich actually saying that attacking Iran is a “moral imperative” and Santorum’s religiousspeak turning off a ton of voters to what he’s spewing.

You actually think that you can disparage the Democratic vote enough to let those two in politics? Bah.

Meanwhile, the best ones to come up against Obama would be Rocky Anderson. Now think about this… The only person to really run against Obama with any type of weight is a person that chose to run third party. Darcy Richardson doesn’t have the clout. The rest of the campainers are jokes.

Then you have to figure out what Obama offers that the Republicans don’t. Quite frankly, he’s a conservative in disguise. He passed 1/2 of the Pipeline already and the GOP is still bitching. He linked up with the Heritage Foundation for Obama/Romneycare. He passed the NDAA, which in the hands of a Republican president (besides Ron Paul) would truly destroy the 1st Amendment far more than this issue of the individual mandate.

Obama’s record is far from clean. Having the GOP in office would make the problem worse.

But if you actually have some kind of info that would make Obama lose, I’d love to hear it. Quite frankly, I doubt there’s enough Republicans in America that could sway a number of people from voting Obama over what the others have proposed during this nominee process.

Sky__Captain

Ah, yes – the usual talking points about Obama.

I must have hit the nail on the head.

– Obama’s a damn liar about the Keystone pipeline. He shot it down, now he wants it? – Provide links about the Heritage Foundation and ObamaCare, please. Or is it also a lie?

Obama remains the weakest candidate in 2012, otherwise he would be touting his record, not creating distractions.

914

I don’t care if you libs give birth or not…Just keep your damn hands out of My wallet!!

http://www.facebook.com/karl.lembke Karl Lembke

I clicked on the video. I get a message saying “This video is private”.